1

The English Indices of Deprivation 2010

Summary of findings for Torbay

This paper presents a brief overview of modelled deprivation in Torbay. The data is taken from the

government’s 2010 English Indices of Deprivation (http://www.communities.gov.uk). The paper presents

some of the findings and illustrates the changing picture of relative deprivation over time.

Overview:

Torbay’s relative position within the national model of deprivation shows a negative direction. This could

be considered as a worrying trend for Torbay. Whilst there is no single local authority level measure

favoured over another, if we consider the rank of local concentration (population weighted based on most

deprived LSOAs containing 10% of population); Torbay’s relative position has moved from 119 in 2004, to

75 in 2007 to 61 in 2010. Torbay’s relative position has continued to be a worsening one, even after

adjusting for the reduction in the number of local authority areas, from 354 to 326.

The number of geographies across England has remained constant over time at 32,482, with 89 areas in

Torbay. These areas are called LSOAs, or Lower Super Output Areas. LSOAs are comparable geographies

with a mean population of approximately 1,500.

Whilst the relative levels of deprivation have increased for Torbay, deprivation within Torbay shows

noticeable variation. At town level both Torquay and Paignton could be perceived to show a worsening in

relative deprivation between 2007 and 2010. However, levels in Brixham could be perceived as improving.

Key findings:

• Torbay is within the top 20% most deprived local authority areas in England for the rank of average

score and the rank of local concentration.

• The number of LSOAs in Torbay in the top 10% most deprived has increased over time from 4 in

2004, to 10 in 2007 and 12 in 2010.

• Numbers of areas in the top 10% most deprived in England has increased in Torbay, whilst

conversely Torbay now has an area considered within the least 10% deprived in England. This could

suggest a widening of the inequality gap across Torbay.

• Overall levels of relative deprivation have worsened in Torbay, with an estimated 21,000 (15%)

residents living in areas considered in the top 10% most deprived in England, compared to an

estimated 15,500 (11%) in 2007.

• Some areas within Torbay have shown noticeable increases in levels of relative deprivation,

Watcombe for example has seen a 10% increase in relative deprivation between 2007 and 2010.

• Croft Hall remains the practice drawing its registered patients from the most deprived

communities.

• It appears that the populations in Torbay mostly living in areas in the top 10% most deprived in

England are young families.

• 1 in 5 of Torbay’s 20 to 29 population live in areas in the top 10% most deprived in England.

2

Summary of district level findings:

The summary measures at district level focus on different aspects of multiple deprivation in the area. No

single summary measure is favoured over another, as there is no single best way of describing or comparing

districts.

In all rankings throughout this paper, a rank of 1 indicates the most deprived in England.

Table 1: Ranking for Torbay with all authorities in …

Area & Year

Rank of

Average

Score

Rank of

Average

Rank

Rank of

Extent

Rank of

Local

Concentra

-tion

Rank of

Income

Scale

Rank of

Employme

-nt Scale

Total

number of

authoritie

s

England

2010 61 49 82 61 97 99 326

2007 71 57 89 75 93 94 354

2004 94 89 113 119 95 94

South West

Authorities

2010 1 2 3 2 6 7 37

2007 3 4 4 3 4 4 45

2004 7 8 6 8 4 4

Torbay’s overall position as 61st most deprived local authority for the rank of average score and rank of

local concentration places Torbay within the top 20% most deprived local authorities in England, between

the 18th

and 19th

percentile. This position is, relatively, worse than that for 2007, even when considering the

reduction in the denominator from 354 to 326 local authority areas. In 2007 Torbay was on the cusp of the

top quartile most deprived between the 20th

and 21st percentile.

Overview of the six summary measures:

Average score is the population weighted average of the combined scores for the SOAs in a district.

Average rank is the population weighted average of the combined ranks for the SOAs in a district.

Extent is the proportion of a district’s population living in the most deprived SOAs in the country.

Local concentration is the population-weighted average of the ranks of a district’s most deprived SOAs that

contain exactly 10% of the district’s population.

Income scale is the number of people who are income deprived.

Employment scale is the number of people who are employment deprived.

3

Small area deprivation

The Index of Multiple Deprivation is constructed from a weighted quantitative model. The model is

weighted in favour of income and employment. Where the rationale is that without an income or

employment, levels of deprivation will be higher. The weighted model is illustrated in figure 1 below,

including the weightings per domain.

Figure 1: Construct of Index of Multiple Deprivation

Details of the indicators within each of these respective domains can be viewed in appendix B.

Each domain consists of a score which is then ranked. The scores for the Income Deprivation Domain and

the Employment Deprivation Domain are rates. So, for example, if an LSOA scores 0.38 in the Income

Deprivation Domain, this means that 38% of the LSOA’s total population is income deprived. The same

applies to the Employment Deprivation Domain where the rate refers to the percentage of the working age

population that is employment deprived.

The scores for the remaining five domains are not rates. Within a domain, the higher the score, the more

deprived a LSOA is, although because the distribution of the data has been modified, it is not possible to

say how much more deprived one area is than another The IMD 2010 score is the combined sum of the

weighted, exponentially transformed domain rank of the domain score. Again, the bigger the IMD 2010

score, the more deprived the LSOA. However, because of the transformations undertaken, it is not possible

to say, for example, that an LSOA with a score of 40 is twice as deprived as an LSOA with a score of 20.

Over recent years the relative levels of deprivation within Torbay’s population have shown a slight

worsening, as can be seen in the Index of Multiple Deprivation columns below (table 2). The worsening

levels of deprivation are most noticeable for the employment domain, where the number of LSOAs in the

most deprived end of the spectrum has shown continued increase.

4

Table 2 (4 tables) presents the counts of LSOAs by deprivation decile. The tables also graphically present

the numbers with a coloured bar (there is no meaning associated to the colour used), the larger the

number the larger the bar. If the respective domain was evenly distributed across the population, we would

expect to see ‘9’ in each decile.

The least equal distribution compared to the national is the health domain, where on the distribution is

centred on the 30+% to 40% most deprived.

The most evenly distributed domain is the crime domain, this shows a pattern of crime deprivation in line

with the national perspective.

The picture of income deprivation affecting children shows pockets of acute deprivation, whilst the overall

picture could be perceived as an improving picture. As the numbers in the most deprived increased, more

noticeably the numbers in the least deprived increased in larger volume.

LSOAs are statistical building blocks, and not natural communities. It should also be noted that discrete

pockets of severe deprivation may potentially be hidden at the population level.

Table 2: Distribution of LSOAs by decile of deprivation per domain – ‘change over time’

2004 2007 2010 2004 2007 2010 2004 2007 2010

Top 10% 4 10 12 6 6 6 7 12 13

10+% to 20% 8 4 4 8 10 13 17 15 20

20+% to 30% 16 24 23 25 22 24 20 23 19

30+% to 40% 22 18 12 16 21 11 22 11 13

40+% to 50% 12 8 12 14 12 15 11 18 11

50+% to 60% 11 15 14 11 9 11 6 3 9

60+% to 70% 9 5 6 6 6 6 4 6 4

70+% to 80% 4 4 4 1 2 2 2 1 0

80+% to 90% 3 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0

90+% to 100% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Count of SOAs

by decile

Index of Multiple Deprivation Income deprivation Employment deprivation

Table 2 cont.

2004 2007 2010 2004 2007 2010 2004 2007 2010

Top 10% 0 7 8 3 4 4 1 1 1

10+% to 20% 4 8 6 7 7 7 4 7 6

20+% to 30% 10 20 14 15 16 20 7 6 7

30+% to 40% 23 22 25 15 17 18 8 19 14

40+% to 50% 18 17 15 16 12 11 18 20 18

50+% to 60% 20 12 14 11 16 14 22 16 20

60+% to 70% 12 3 5 12 8 7 15 13 13

70+% to 80% 2 0 1 6 4 3 11 6 8

80+% to 90% 0 0 1 2 4 5 3 1 2

90+% to 100% 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0

Count of SOAs

by decile

Health deprivation Education deprivation Barriers to housing

Table 2 cont.

5

2004 2007 2010 2004 2007 2010

Top 10% 4 7 9 19 17 16

10+% to 20% 4 10 8 12 18 16

20+% to 30% 3 6 8 13 12 14

30+% to 40% 7 12 9 12 11 9

40+% to 50% 9 12 10 4 7 9

50+% to 60% 10 11 7 5 7 6

60+% to 70% 17 5 6 8 7 7

70+% to 80% 9 13 12 5 2 3

80+% to 90% 13 10 10 6 7 4

90+% to 100% 13 3 10 5 1 5

Count of SOAs

by decile

Crime deprivation Living environment

Table 2 cont.

2004 2007 2010 2004 2007 2010

Top 10% 5 2 7 4 5 3

10+% to 20% 9 10 8 16 12 13

20+% to 30% 15 19 18 13 16 16

30+% to 40% 20 17 12 15 11 13

40+% to 50% 19 23 19 11 17 19

50+% to 60% 11 9 8 10 12 9

60+% to 70% 6 5 10 11 10 11

70+% to 80% 4 3 4 3 2 1

80+% to 90% 0 1 3 4 2 3

90+% to 100% 0 0 0 2 2 1

Count of SOAs

by decile

IDAC IDAOP

6

Map 1 illustrates the geographical distribution of relative deprivation in Torbay for the Index of Multiple

Deprivation. The small coloured areas are the LSOAs, where areas in red are areas considered within the

top 10% most deprived in England.

Maps for the domains are presented in appendix A.

Map 1: 2010 Index of Multiple Deprivation

7

Modelling deprivation at ward level was undertaken by attributing the average score to the each of the

estimated population. The aggregated score then being divided by the total population provides the

average score per ward. No confidence intervals are presented in this paper.

Table 3 shows the average score per ward for 2007 and 2010 (consistent methodology used to calculate),

where the higher the score the higher the relative deprivation. The proportionate change is also presented.

Watcombe shows a net (relative) position of being 10% worse in 2010 compared to 2007.

Table 3: Ward level findings

Ward 2007 Score 2010 Score Change

Berry Head-with-Furzeham 22.6 22.1 -2.1%

Blatchcombe 29.2 30.5 4.7%

Churston-with-Galmpton 12.4 12.0 -3.1%

Clifton-with-Maidenway 22.1 21.3 -3.9%

Cockington-with-Chelston 19.1 18.7 -1.9%

Ellacombe 35.1 38.0 8.3%

Goodrington-with-Roselands 19.2 18.3 -4.7%

Preston 20.0 18.6 -7.0%

Roundham-with-Hyde 42.8 44.0 2.7%

Shiphay-with-the-Willows 16.4 17.6 7.5%

St Marychurch 25.6 25.9 1.0%

St Mary's-with-Summercombe 25.8 24.8 -4.0%

Tormohun 43.5 44.7 2.7%

Watcombe 32.8 36.2 10.1%

Wellswood 27.7 27.3 -1.6%

Torbay Resident 26.4 26.8 1.5%

There are areas in Torbay within the top 2% most deprived in England. For example, one LSOA in

Roundham with Hyde is ranked as the 340th

most deprived in England, just outside the top 1% most

deprived in England. Table 4 summarises the most deprived LSOA per domain in Torbay and identifies the

electoral ward and the relative position.

Table 4: Summary of most deprived LSOAs in Torbay

Deprivation domain Most deprived rank

Rank Top % Ward

Index of Multiple Deprivation 446 1.4% Ellacombe

Income deprivation domain 1,192 3.7% Ellacombe

Employment deprivation domain 340 1.1% Roundham with Hyde

Health deprivation and disability domain 1,149 3.5% Roundham with Hyde

Education, skills and training deprivation domain 1,054 3.2% Blatchcombe

Barriers to housing and services domain 1,742 5.4% Blatchcombe

Crime domain 428 1.3% Roundham with Hyde

Living environment deprivation domain 472 1.5% Roundham with Hyde

Income deprivation affecting children 1,258 3.9% Ellacombe

Income deprivation affecting older people 1,131 3.5% Watcombe

8

GP practice deprivation scores have been calculated by attributing all registered persons within each

practice, the IMD score for the area they live. This is based on postcode of residence and assumes a normal

distribution of deprivation and patients per area. The cumulative score is then divided by the population of

the practice to give an overall practice score. This is consistent with previous methodologies and allows

comparisons of relative deprivation scores per practice in Torbay.

Table 5: Practice level findings

Name 2007 IMD

Score

2010 IMD

Score

2010 IMD

Practice Rank

Change on

2007

Barton Surgery 29.4 31.0 5 5.4%

Bishops Place Surgery 30.6 31.3 4 2.3%

Brunel Medical Practice 25.3 25.8 11 2.2%

Chelston Hall 22.8 23.3 15 2.2%

Cherrybrook Medical Centre 15.4 15.0 20 -2.6%

Chilcote Surgery 27.8 28.9 7 4.1%

Compass House Medical Centre 21.0 20.3 19 -3.5%

Corner Place Surgery 26.4 26.3 10 -0.4%

Croft Hall Medical Practice 34.5 35.4 1 2.7%

Grosvenor Road Surgery 25.4 25.1 14 -1.1%

Mayfield Medical Centre 25.6 25.7 12 0.5%

Old Farm Surgery 26.7 27.5 8 3.0%

Old Mill Surgery 26.7 26.5 9 -0.9%

Parkhill Medical Practice 28.8 29.1 6 1.0%

Pembroke House 21.9 21.3 18 -2.5%

Shiphay Manor Surgery 30.4 32.1 2 5.5%

Southover Surgery 30.3 31.8 3 5.1%

St Luke’s Medical Centre 22.8 22.6 17 -0.8%

The Greenswood Surgery 24.0 23.1 16 -3.7%

Withycombe Lodge Surgery 24.8 25.3 13 2.2%

Torbay Registered 26.2 26.6 - 1.5%

Approximate England Average 21.7 21.5 - -

Levels of relative deprivation are highest for Croft Hall; this suggests that Croft draws their registered

patients from the more deprived communities. Levels of relative deprivation for Croft have worsened

between 2007 and 2010.

Relative levels for the practices in Brixham have all decreased. This does not mean they are more affluent,

more that the relative levels of deprivation are worse in other areas.

Barton, Shiphay Manor and Southover have all seen an increase in terms of their patient’s relative levels of

deprivation between 2007 and 2010.

9

Understanding the population.

Figure 2: Population pyramid

The population living in the areas of

Torbay in the top 10% most deprived in

England is illustrated in figure 2, and

detailed further in table 6.

Figure 2 shows a clear younger structure

living in the more deprived areas, when

compared to the rest of Torbay’s

population structure.

Table 6 presents a breakdown of the

population, and includes the proportion

of that age group residing in the most

deprived communities. For example, we

can see that 20% (or 1 in 5) of the 20 to

24 population living area of Torbay in the

top 10% most deprived in England.

Table 6: Population structure

Population by

quinary age

banding and

gender

Persons living in Top

10% most deprived in

England

Rest of Torbay’s

population

Proportion of

Torbay’s residents

living in Top 10%

most deprived in

England F M Total F M Total

0 to 4 500 550 1,050 2,500 2,650 5,150 16.9%

5 to 9 500 500 1,000 2,700 2,950 5,650 15.0%

10 to 14 500 500 1,000 3,150 3,250 6,400 13.5%

15 to 19 650 600 1,250 3,450 3,600 7,050 15.1%

20 to 24 800 800 1,600 3,050 3,350 6,400 20.0%

25 to 29 850 850 1,700 3,050 3,100 6,150 21.7%

30 to 34 650 750 1,400 2,950 2,900 5,850 19.3%

35 to 39 600 750 1,350 3,350 3,500 6,850 16.5%

40 to 44 650 900 1,550 4,050 4,200 8,250 15.8%

45 to 49 700 900 1,600 4,300 4,400 8,700 15.5%

50 to 54 700 800 1,500 3,950 3,900 7,850 16.0%

55 to 59 550 700 1,250 3,900 3,750 7,650 14.0%

60 to 64 550 700 1,250 4,750 4,400 9,150 12.0%

65 to 69 450 450 900 3,900 3,800 7,700 10.5%

70 to 74 400 450 850 3,350 3,050 6,400 11.7%

75 to 79 350 300 650 2,800 2,400 5,200 11.1%

80 to 84 300 200 500 2,450 1,700 4,150 10.8%

85+ 500 200 700 3,300 1,550 4,850 12.6%

Total 10,200 10,900 21,100 60,950 58,450 119,400 15.0%

Source: 2010 Registered Patients list

10

Map 2: Distribution of GP practices in Torbay by town and ward

11

Appendix A - Map 3: 2010 Income deprivation

Map 4: 2010 Employment deprivation

12

Map 5: 2010 Health and disability deprivation

Map 6: 2010 Education, skills and training deprivation

13

Map 7: 2010 Barriers to housing and services deprivation

Map 8: 2010 Crime deprivation

14

Map 9: 2010 Living environment deprivation

Map 10: 2010 Income deprivation affecting children

15

Map 11: 2010 Income deprivation affecting older people

16

Appendix B

Income Deprivation Domain

This domain measures the proportion of the population in an area that live in income deprived

families. The definition of income deprivation adopted here includes both families that are out-of-

work and families that are in work but who have low earnings (and who satisfy the respective means

tests).

The indicators

A combined count of income deprived individuals per Lower layer Super Output Area (LSOA) is

calculated by summing the following five indicators:

• Adults and children in Income Support families. August 2008

• Adults and children in income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance families. August 2008

• Adults and children in Pension Credit (Guarantee) families

• Adults and children in Child Tax Credit families (who are not claiming Income Support, income-

based Jobseeker’s Allowance or Pension Credit) whose equivalised income (excluding housing

benefits) is below 60% of the median before housing costs

• Asylum seekers in England in receipt of subsistence support, accommodation support, or both.

The combined count of income deprived individuals per LSOA forms the numerator of an income

deprivation rate which is expressed as a proportion of the total LSOA population.

Employment Deprivation Domain

This domain measures employment deprivation conceptualised as involuntary exclusion of the

working age population from the world of work. The employment deprived are defined as those who

would like to work but are unable to do so through unemployment, sickness or disability.

The indicators

A combined count of employment deprived individuals per LSOA is calculated by summing the

following seven indicators:

• Claimants of Jobseeker’s Allowance (both contribution-based and income based), women aged 18-

59 and men aged 18-64. Quarterly average for 2008

• Claimants of Incapacity Benefit aged 18-59/64. Quarterly average for 2008

• Claimants of Severe Disablement Allowance aged 18-59/64. Quarterly average for 2008

• Claimants of Employment and Support Allowance aged 18-59/64 (those with a contribution-based

element). Quarterly average for 2008

17

• Participants in New Deal for 18-24s who are not claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance. Quarterly average

for 2008

• Participants in New Deal for 25+ who are not claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance. Quarterly average

for 2008

• Participants in New Deal for Lone Parents aged 18 and over (after initial interview). Quarterly

average for 2008

The combined count of employment deprived individuals per LSOA forms the numerator of an

employment deprivation rate which is expressed as a proportion of the working age population

(women aged 18-59 and men aged 18-64) in the LSOA.

Health Deprivation and Disability Domain

This domain measures premature death and the impairment of quality of life by poor health. It

considers both physical and mental health. The domain measures morbidity, disability and

premature mortality but not aspects of behaviour or environment that may be predictive of future

health deprivation.

The indicators

• Years of Potential Life Lost: An age and sex standardised measure of premature death. 2004/08

• Comparative Illness and Disability Ratio: An age and sex standardised morbidity/ disability ratio.

2008

• Acute morbidity: An age and sex standardised rate of emergency admission to hospital. 2006/08

• Mood and anxiety disorders: The rate of adults suffering from mood and anxiety disorders.

2005/08

The indicators within the domain were standardised by ranking and transforming to a normal

distribution.

Education, Skills and Training deprivation Domain

This domain captures the extent of deprivation in education, skills and training in an area. The

indicators fall into two sub-domains: one relating to children and young people and one relating to

adult skills. These two sub-domains are designed to reflect the ‘flow’ and ‘stock’ of educational

disadvantage within an area respectively. That is, the ‘children and young people’ sub-domain

measures the attainment of qualifications and associated measures (‘flow’), while the ‘skills’ sub-

domain measures the lack of qualifications in the resident working age adult population (‘stock’).

The indicators

Sub-domain: Children and Young People

18

• Key Stage 2 attainment: The average points score of pupils taking English, maths and science Key

Stage 2 exams.

• Key Stage 3 attainment: The average points score of pupils taking English, maths and science Key

Stage 3 exams.

• Key Stage 4 attainment: The average capped points score of pupils taking Key Stage 4 (GCSE or

equivalent) exams.

• Secondary school absence: The proportion of authorised and unauthorised absences from

secondary school.

• Staying on in education post 16: The proportion of young people not staying on in school or non-

advanced education above age 16.

• Entry to higher education: The proportion of young people aged under 21 not entering higher

education.

Sub-domain: Skills

• Adult skills: The proportion of working age adults aged 25-54 with no or low qualifications.

Barriers to Housing and Services Domain

This domain measures the physical and financial accessibility of housing and key local services. The

indicators fall into two sub-domains: ‘geographical barriers’, which relate to the physical proximity of

local services, and ‘wider barriers’ which includes issues relating to access to housing such as

affordability.

The indicators

Sub-domain: Wider Barriers

• Household overcrowding: The proportion of all households in an LSOA which are judged to have

insufficient space to meet the household’s needs.

• Homelessness: The rate of acceptances for housing assistance under the homelessness provisions

of housing legislation.

• Housing affordability: The difficulty of access to owner-occupation, expressed as a proportion of

households aged under 35 whose income means that they are unable to afford to enter owner

occupation.

Sub-domain: Geographical Barriers

• Road distance to a GP surgery: A measure of the mean distance to the closest GP surgery for

people living in the LSOA.

• Road distance to a food shop: A measure of the mean distance to the closest supermarket or

general store for people living in the LSOA.

19

• Road distance to a primary school: A measure of the mean distance to the closest primary school

for people living in the LSOA.

• Road distance to a Post Office: A measure of the mean distance to the closest post office or sub

post office for people living in the LSOA.

Crime Domain

Crime is an important feature of deprivation that has major effects on individuals and communities.

The purpose of this domain is to measure the rate of recorded crime for four major crime types –

violence, burglary, theft and criminal damage – representing the risk of personal and material

victimisation at a small area level.

The indicators

• Violence: The rate of violence (19 recorded crime types) per 1000 at-risk population.

• Burglary: The rate of burglary (4 recorded crime types) per 1000 at-risk properties.

• Theft: The rate of theft (5 recorded crime types) per 1000 at-risk population.

• Criminal damage: The rate of criminal damage (11 recorded crime types) per 1000 at-risk

population.

Living Environment Deprivation Domain

This domain measures the quality of individuals’ immediate surroundings both within and outside

the home. The indicators fall into two sub-domains: the ‘indoors’ living environment, which

measures the quality of housing, and the ‘outdoors’ living environment which contains two

measures relating to air quality and road traffic accidents.

The indicators

Sub-domain: The ‘indoors’ living environment

• Housing in poor condition: The proportion of social and private homes that fail to meet the decent

homes standard.

• Houses without central heating: The proportion of houses that do not have central heating.

Sub-domain: The ‘outdoors’ living environment

• Air quality: A measure of air quality based on emissions rates for four pollutants.

• Road traffic accidents: A measure of road traffic accidents involving injury to pedestrians and

cyclists among the resident and workplace population.

HAINES/07/11